Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Sep 2006

Vol. 624 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions.

In anticipation that Leaders' Questions may deal with current issues arising from disclosures concerning the Mahon tribunal, I am allowing questions today on the same basis as 10 February 2004. I will make a brief statement on the application of Standing Order 56 which deals with matters sub judice and sets out, as far as the Dáil is concerned, the delicate balance between this House and the courts and judicial tribunals in their respective functions. The relevant part of the Standing Order states: “a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal”.

On 10 February 2004 I made a ruling allowing matters relating to the Mahon tribunal to be discussed on the basis of the then particular circumstances. That application of the Standing Order depends, to some degree, on timing and the type of Dáil discussion. The House finds itself in a somewhat similar situation today and I am allowing the matter be discussed in the given circumstances without prejudice to any decision the Chair may be required to make in the future. However, in doing so, Members should bear in mind when contributing that while these matters are now in the public domain, the Mahon tribunal saw fit to correspond with the media concerning issues surrounding confidentiality.

In addition, the normal rules of debate shall apply. Serious allegations against a Member can only be made by way of substantive motion and references should not be made to the private family matters of another Member. I ask for Members' co-operation in these matters.

I will abide by the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. The House meets today in extraordinary circumstances following an admission by the Taoiseach yesterday on national television that when he was Minister for Finance, he accepted €50,000 in donations.

The Office of Taoiseach is the most powerful political office in the land. It is one that should be respected by, have the confidence of and exercise its authority in the interests of the people. Its occupant should be above suspicion and the people expect his or her honour to be absolutely above reproach.

In the past week, the Office of Taoiseach has been damaged. It is wrong that a litany of the Taoiseach's colleagues at ministerial level have sought to deflect from the fundamental issue by drawing in emotional and traumatic circumstances the Taoiseach went through a number of years ago. Around 100,000 men and women have gone through the same traumatic experience. No Member on this side of the House has sought, by comment or otherwise, to draw any of the implications of this into this debate. Yesterday was a difficult day for the Taoiseach and I appreciate that. As I said, there are 100,000 others who have had similar experiences. The issue involved in last night's interview is not simply a matter of ethics, morality, codes or legislation. It is a fundamental principle, the simple issue of right and wrong. It is what we try to teach and instil in our children.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach two very simple questions. When he looks at the acceptance of €50,000 in cash donations, the appointments and the statements he made in this House about probity, perspective and not being beholden to business people financially, can the Taoiseach explain to me and to the nation how he is prepared to apply standards to himself that he is not prepared to apply to everybody else? Why is the standard applied to himself lower than it is for anybody else?

In view of the Taoiseach's interview yesterday, is he prepared to stand in this House, from the honoured seat he occupies, and admit that what he did in accepting €50,000 in cash donations was wrong? Is he prepared to say to the people, "Yes, I was wrong"?

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and will try to be as brief as I can.

I come to the House with the belief that the truth is certainly more powerful than the most baseless of political attacks. I intend to address private issues here today, frankly and fully, even though I believe they have nothing to do with my public responsibilities, have never influenced me on any public policy and represent absolutely no conflict of interest. I will answer charges which were made, based on what I believe were calculated and scurrilous leaks of material given to a tribunal in confidence. I will talk plainly about what are personal, sensitive matters that properly concern my family and my private life. I acknowledge what Deputy Kenny has said in that regard. I do all this because a person, or persons, accessed confidential material before a tribunal and twisted and turned that material into a political smear campaign with no regard for the truth or the institutions that govern our society. I do it, in the end, to protect the rights of every citizen.

Before I deal with the facts at hand, I want everyone in this House and all the people of this nation to understand one truth above all else. Never, in all the time I have served in public life, have I taken a bribe or in any way put my personal interest ahead of the public good. I have served this State honestly and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. For many years I have endured all sorts of allegations that have proven to be false. Perhaps this is part of the price one must pay for the honour of standing in the House as Taoiseach and of serving in Government and I understand that. I have never dishonoured any office in my responsibility, in answer to Deputy Kenny's question. While I will be the first to admit I have made mistakes in my life and career, one mistake I have never made, and never will make, is to enrich myself by abusing or misusing the trust the people of this nation have placed in me. The Flood — now Mahon — and Moriarty tribunals were set up to investigate corruption in our planning and political processes. Following on from the McCracken tribunal and its revelations, the Government, of which I was Taoiseach and on my insistence, determined to get to the bottom of controversies in our planning and political processes. Our resolve was clear and our policy was plain. A thorough investigation would purge our system of wrongdoing. Nine years on, the Moriarty tribunal is coming to a conclusion and its report is imminent. The Mahon tribunal continues with its work. I have supported and assisted both tribunals at all times. I have provided all documentation requested, sworn affidavits, given statements of evidence and had no difficulty with this. It is my duty. I see it as my duty to co-operate and have done so. I have willingly contributed to inquiries that helped to end the corrupt practices of the past which damaged confidence and trust in our political system.

In setting up the tribunals, I do not believe any of us foresaw that some would debase their roles by deploying them as instruments for making false, malicious and baseless allegations. That kind of cynical manipulation and smear campaigning can be as damaging to our political system as actual corruption. It creates an atmosphere where all politicians are tarnished and trust in our institutions is eroded. I personally have been the subject of a series of lurid allegations, which somebody referred to today as being "very colourful". They might be colourful, but I gave all the facts about my life, including my personal life, in order to prove that these allegations were untrue. Other issues arose and I accept that but allegations were made that I took a bribe of €50,000 from Denis ‘Starry' O'Brien.

If the House is agreeable, I propose to give the Taoiseach the time necessary to——

I do not want much time.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Denis ‘Starry' O'Brien allegation is well known. It was also alleged that I received a further bribe of €30,000 from Owen O'Callaghan in 1992, that I had bank accounts in the Netherlands Antilles, Liechtenstein and Jersey, England, that I had €15 million in onshore accounts and had taken steps to open a bank account in Mauritius. There were other similar, unfounded, allegations made against me which have not yet been made public. Each and every one of these charges is baseless. They are false and no more than a tissue of lies. However, the allegations have been made and the tribunal is required to investigate them, in so far as they fall within its terms of reference.

Those who have made the allegations have gone to extraordinary lengths to set me up. For example, a forged letter purporting to show that I had taken steps to open a bank account in Mauritius was sent to the Moriarty tribunal. I can confirm that correspondence was subsequently forwarded to the tribunal which demonstrates the letter to be a forgery. In any view of the situation, the forwarding of the forgery is a sinister event. Likewise, the recent leaking of confidential details about my finances, family and marital life are also very sinister and has been done in a calculated way in order to damage me.

Deputy Kenny asked me about the issues of 1993 and 1994. I gave the full details of those yesterday. They did not break any law. They did not break any tax law. The Deputy asked if I should have left the loans the way I had them and not listened to friends who were trying to be helpful. I suppose if hindsight was foresight, one would never make any mistakes at all. I did accept them but they were loans given to me in good faith, to be of assistance to me at the time. If the Deputy asked me if it were today, after all that has happened over the years, and I was in a similar position, the answer to his question is no. But the reality is that at the time, I was in a difficult position. They put pressure on me to accept these donations and I did. I only accepted them, after some considerable time, as loans with interest. I knew what the position was and what the law is and that is why I accepted them. I gave the full details yesterday. I can go through all of that again if the Deputy wishes.

That is precisely what is wrong with Irish politics and what breeds the cynicism we have. I did not make any lurid allegations against the Taoiseach. I did not ask him about any of the details of 1993 or 1994. I asked him two fundamental questions, neither of which he has answered. Can he explain to the Irish people how he applies a different standard to everybody else than he applies to himself? He stood up and quite rightly accepted the McCracken tribunal report. He spoke, knowing in his heart, mind and soul that he was the recipient of €50,000 in cash donations. He told everybody in the nation at large that this should not apply in the case of public representatives. How can he explain that he applies a standard to himself that is different to that applied to everyone else?

Is the Taoiseach not man enough to stand up and say, "Yes, I was wrong"? Double standards were applied here. He knew he was in receipt of those donations but did not regularise the position after he became Taoiseach, the most powerful office in the land. One does not need legislation on a matter of conscience. One knows it is either right or wrong. One does not need any code of morality or ethics. Is the Taoiseach prepared to admit that the acceptance of €50,000 in cash donations by him was wrong?

I listened to a number of Ministers — Deputies Hanafin, O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Roche and Brennan — all refuse to answer the question as to whether they considered the Taoiseach was wrong. Nobody on that side of the House is prepared to accept any responsibility. Nobody is prepared to say, "Yes, this was wrong" or "I admit I was wrong" and from the new Tánaiste, the silence is deafening. Nobody accepts responsibility or accountability and that is what diminishes the status of the Taoiseach's office, the highest in the land.

The Taoiseach spoke last night about receiving "£8,000" at a function in Manchester. As I understand the green book that applies to ministerial responsibility, it is strictly and completely forbidden to accept any donations or pecuniary reward for personal use, as a Minister. It seems as if, in that confused statement, the Taoiseach was using the office — if he was a Minister at the time — as some kind of nixer for reward and that should not be. In that respect, was that money paid in sterling, punts or euro? Was the Taoiseach a Minister in Cabinet at the time? Did he pay tax on this money and were any of the Cabinet rules breached by virtue of the fact that he received it?

There are three fundamental issues. How does the Taoiseach apply different standards to himself than to everybody else? Is he prepared to admit that what he did was wrong? Will he deal with the issue of the moneys received by him at the Manchester function?

On the first question, Deputy Kenny has it wrong. He used the term "cash donations" but I did not receive any cash donations. I accepted money reluctantly on the basis that it was a loan to be repaid with interest. It would have been entirely wrong to accept a donation and I did not accept the money as a donation. I took it as a loan to be paid back and I said I would have to pay interest on it.

I would have paid the money back a number of years ago because I had accumulated certain moneys and my adviser had told me how I should do it, but, as I believe the Deputy will know, it is a number of years since some of these issues were raised with me. I assume that if I had paid them back, I would have been accused of doing so only because the matter had been raised, although I never believed these issues would become public matters because I was assured of confidentiality. However, one should remember that if I had been assured someone would say I paid back the moneys only because the issue had been raised, I would not have been in a position to do so almost until these issues became known. However, the moneys were loans to be paid back with interest and it was on that basis that I took them. That was the position throughout the entire period. There was no other issue and that has been well documented with the tribunal and with the people involved.

My friends had asked to have a function to raise the money for me. There is no tax implication because it was a loan to be repaid with interest. That was the very clear position I had established with my colleagues.

Deputy Kenny's second question was whether it is wise for a politician, in any circumstances and under any skies, to take any kind of money on any basis from anyone. The laws provide distinctly for one to do so. They provide for one's friends or one's family. There are many ways to do that. There are benefits applied to people's families for a range of reasons. There are benefits if one lives on the land and a range of other benefits and that is why the legislation is written the way it is. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course it can be made look wrong, as demonstrated by the carefully calculated leaks a week before the Dáil resumed which placed me in my current position.

It was not wrong and I gave freely the information not to prove that the transaction was right or wrong but to prove that other accusations about me, such as my having money in certain locations, were unfounded. I will not go back over them. That was the purpose of what I was doing.

I believe it is well known in the House that I have, for many years, been very closely associated with a number of organisations in Manchester. I have attended functions and spoken there. While in Government, out of Government and as a backbencher, I been involved with St. Patrick's Day events, charity groups, the Dublin Association and the Irish World Heritage Centre. I have spoken at many functions. There are a good few business groups in Manchester and I believe I have spoken to them all.

What I said yesterday was for completeness. When some of these issues arose, I went through my records dating back to 1977. I did not go back to the period of the tribunals. I went through all my personal records dating back to 1977, in addition to my wife's and children's personal records. I am not saying this to elicit sympathy — it is a fact that I was asked to do it. I had to do it and I went back even further.

The only other time I was in receipt of anything was when I was given a sum of money by a group in Manchester on a particular occasion attended by about 25 people. I dealt with this properly in terms of taxes. It had nothing in particular to do with the present matter at all but I did not want somebody to come out again and say I had got this particular sum of money. That was the only point I made on that particular issue. That was in 1994. I checked the date and believe it was the 1994-95 season. Subject to correction, I believe I was Minister at the time. That is what that was about — there was no other issue. When I went through all my other records dating from 1977, I noted that was the only other donation I was not able to account for out of literally hundreds of cheques and records dating back 29 years.

These issues with the tribunal, pertaining to me, have now gone on for seven years. I have carefully gone back through and taken advice on all of these records over seven years. That is the context and it has nothing in particular to do with these issues. I believe that answers Deputy Kenny's three questions.

I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will agree it was difficult to watch the interview last night and it must have been particularly difficult for the Taoiseach to give it. Nobody wants to intrude into the domestic or family affairs of any member of the House and nobody on these benches has ever mentioned the Taoiseach's personal life, let alone probed it. It would be helpful in clarifying the matter if this were acknowledged. It would be helpful if we could set it aside because we are not interested in the Taoiseach's private life.

The leak may well have been for the vindictive motivation that the Taoiseach says it was for. All I can say is that nobody on these benches is responsible for it. We did not know the information.

It would also be helpful in achieving clarity if there were a little less of the common man routine. It is a long time since the Taoiseach was a common man. He has been driven around this country since 1987 and he never put his hand in his pocket at a forecourt to fill the car with petrol. He is earning more than €250,000 per annum and therefore there is no point in comparing himself to the man on Hill 16 who got into a bit of trouble and had a whip-round. Mr. Haughey's collection started with a whip-round also and it was purely an accident that the matter entered the public domain.

The issue in question is the Taoiseach's acceptance, for personal use, of €50,000. He said The Irish Times was off the wall but it was not in that it referred to a figure between €50,000 to €100,000. It is important that the Taoiseach now take this opportunity to clarify whether there is any more money.

We now have standards in law and practice. The Taoiseach himself has interpreted them before this House for officeholders and Members. He said no Member of the House and certainly no officeholder should accept money that places him or her under any financial obligation. Why does the Taoiseach believe he can articulate standards for the rest of the Members of this House while not having to comply with them himself? He said that moneys he accepted in 1993, amounting to €50,000 and which have not been paid back 13 years later, and on which no interest was discharged, comprise a loan. However, when it was suggested during the Deputy Lowry affair that the money in question might have been a loan, the Taoiseach said he would require incontrovertible written evidence of that arrangement and the amount of the repayments at the time. Why would the Taoiseach apply this standard to Deputy Lowry and not to himself? Is he telling the House that he, as a former Minister for Finance and accountant, committed no aspect of the arrangement in question to paper?

Is there any written evidence that the people in question gave the Taoiseach the money? Was the arrangement scribbled on the back of a beer mat when the transaction transpired? Why is it that standards the Taoiseach articulated in the House at the time of the McCracken report and the Haughey, Ray Burke, and Michael Lowry affairs, as well as in the case of the former junior Minister, Deputy Callely, are articulated for others, but he now comes in here to tell us, that he, the most senior office-holder in the land does not have to comply with those same standards?

These events took place some years before publication of the McCracken report. However, the procedures I followed, the actions I have now taken and what I have told the tribunal and the public yesterday and today breach neither the ethics code, the tax code, nor legislation. I am sure Deputy Rabbitte, like others, has examined the position very carefully and has not found that to be the case. As I said to Deputy Kenny, I accepted those moneys on the basis that they were loans to be repaid with interest. They would have been repaid before now but I had some difficulty in getting friends to accept that. However, they realise that it has created more difficulty for me now than if they had accepted repayment.

The help I received from personal friends on the basis that loans would be repaid with interest was no more than that. They came to my aid at a certain point in my life. They were friends, and I had known each individual for many years. At no time did I do them any favours; nor was I beholden to them in any fashion. I do not wish to draw distinctions between my actions and those of another Member, but I had no business connections with any of those people. None of my businesses had any association with any of theirs, something fairly evident, since I have never had any businesses. However, the cases are different, since I could not have benefited or gained in any way from any of those individuals. I do not say that to point up others' difficulties. The loans were based on the understanding that I would repay them.

The standards Members are obliged to meet are those in the very tight legislation we drew up over several years. Even today, nothing of what I have put into the public domain or told the tribunals over the years breached any of those guidelines. I ask no one to be purer than legislative guidelines placed before this House. I did not break the rules of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. I checked the matter with senior counsel and the tax authorities long ago, since I was involved in such issues.

On Deputy Rabbitte's first two points, I do not want to take issue with The Irish Times, which is a newspaper of high standing. I served it well on every publication day from Thursday to Wednesday, being able to fill headlines, as I will probably also do tomorrow. I have no reason to get into a row with it that I would probably lose. I have checked the text and what its eminent journalists said. On the first morning, when I was in Clare, it very precisely stated that four people had given me between IR£50,000 and IR£100,000 in December 1993. Yesterday I proved that the sum was IR£22,500. That is my only point, but its comparison was with that figure. I put all the other issues into the public domain.

I accept Deputy Rabbitte's point about his party having had nothing to do with the leaks and or anything to do with making my personal life more difficult. No one in politics or among the public, other than a few organisations gave me a rough time when my wife and I first separated. I do not suggest that anyone in this House has ever been unfair to me in that regard and I appreciate that.

The Taoiseach, as Minister for Finance, was the boss of the Revenue at the time. Did he seek and receive clearance from the Revenue that he can say that he has no tax liability? A loan not repaid after 13 years, with an express refusal to accept repayment in the case of certain donors, is a gift with tax implications. Did he get clearance? If the payments constituted loans, what does the Taoiseach calculate that he now owes? What was the rate of compound interest, and how much is now outstanding?

On the question of accepting €50,000, surely that breached the ministerial code of conduct even then. The Taoiseach has spoken of Mauritius and other outrageous allegations made against him that I am certain are entirely baseless. It reminds me of his statement last night that he had no bank account between 1987 and 1994. Is he telling the House that when he was Minister for Finance and responsible for running the country's Exchequer he had no bank account in the jurisdiction? Did he have one outside the jurisdiction, or was there no bank account during that entire period?

Perhaps the Taoiseach might be specific about the Manchester event. Was there a series of such events but a single payment? He referred in the interview to his having paid capital gains and gift tax, but he did not say on what he had paid it or why it was liable.

I know the law, although I am not an expert on every aspect. However, many years ago my tax advisers checked the issues in detail on the basis that it was a loan with interest. Subject to correction, I believe that the rate throughout the loan period was 3% — the interest rate that a person would have received on a deposit from 1993 or 1994. It was calculated yearly, and the total interest would be more than €20,000. I receive an annual figure from my tax adviser. It was calculated over the entire period on that basis. I paid capital gains tax and gift tax. It is not appropriate for me to spell out what I paid, but I assure the Deputy that I did so following advice.

I do not think Deputy Rabbitte means me to answer this question, but I must respond factually, since it is a fair question. I was involved in separation proceedings at the beginning of 1987, and they did not conclude until the end of 1993 in the High Court. Over that period, my wife and I had joint accounts in our names. For obvious reasons, I did not use our joint account. I used cheques separately to deal with issues, and I did not open an account in my own name until afterwards. I hope that is clear. The question was asked, so I have to answer it. In Manchester, as I said, I dealt with a range of issues, but that was the particular one, namely, my taxes.

This very morning the Government has thrown thousands of Aer Lingus workers to the multinational wolves, on stock exchanges around the world. Yesterday, the Government had gardaí pushing the decent people of Rossport around the place at the behest of the Shell Oil corporation.

Hear, hear.

At every hand's turn the Taoiseach has facilitated the powerful and the very wealthy. Therefore it is no surprise that wealthy businessmen should cough up €50,000 to him. What is shocking is that the Taoiseach still apparently does not see that a Minister for Finance taking large amounts of cash from businessmen is by any objective yardstick a massive conflict of interest. The Taoiseach minimises the amount of money, but in 1993 the average industrial wage was €13,416 per year, so that three times that amount, by any ordinary worker's standard, would be colossal. By coincidence, two years after that I bought a semi-detached home for €47,000 with a mortgage that goes on until I am 65. At no stage should the Taoiseach have brought his personal life or difficulties into this issue. It is not relevant.

Again last night, deliberately, he cast RTE's Brian Dobson in the role of agony aunt in order to divert attention from the critical issues which he is refusing to answer. The Taoiseach's personal circumstances are irrelevant because he said, last night, that he had already got a bank loan to pay off pressing bills, that they were taken care of. Presumably he had a schedule of repayments to the bank. He then used what he says were personal loans to pay off the bank loan. Can he explain that conundrum to the House?

When the Taoiseach was in the Dáil in 1997 setting up tribunals on payments to politicians, it beggars belief that the alarm bells that should have been going off in his head were not so deafening as——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——to tell him to pay back the €50,000. It was at the very least a catastrophic failure of political judgment. It further beggars belief that he could not give it back. Did the Taoiseach ever hear of a bank draft? This morning it took me two minutes to draft the letter the Taoiseach could send with it:

Ah Jaysus lads, you'll have me in huge trouble if you don't take back the €50,000. My circumstances are improved and I'll have 50 reporters traipsing after me for the rest of my life if this comes out. Bertie.

It was as simple as that. Perhaps he might have said: "P.S. Tell Paddy the plasterer to steer clear of Callely's house. He is in enough trouble with the painter already."

A senior Minister gets substantial amounts of money from wealthy people. Half of them are subsequently lifted into influential positions on prestigious State bodies. What would any objective assessment of that be in any jurisdiction? That was nauseous patronage and cronyism. Incredibly, the Taoiseach blocked it out last night: the appointments were not because they gave him money but because they were his friends. That is just as bad. Can he not understand that appointing cronies to State boards because they are friends is the most despicable abuse of the State and of public bodies?

The Deputy's time has concluded. He must give way to the Taoiseach.

Finally, we had the hapless Deputy Callely. A businessman gave his house a slap of paint.

I ask the Deputy to please give way to the Taoiseach.

That caused the Taoiseach to show him the door, while he walked away with the whole house. By those standards, should the Taoiseach not go after the former Minister of State, Deputy Callely?

As I said earlier, these were loans with interest, not from businessmen but friends. My friends have been described as businessmen but the impression given that they are captains of industry is far from the truth. They are people who assisted me at a particular time because they knew the circumstances. I accepted that only on the basis these were loans with interest. That is the position.

Every person appointed to a State board whether by myself or my colleagues is someone we believe is qualified for such an appointment. They are appointments based on merit taking into account the particular combination of skills, qualifications, background and life experience that each person has. Over a long political career I know a great many people who have been appointed to key boards. I knew these people. They had relevant skills and experience. Three of the five had served on State boards long before they gave me any loan. The other two could be considered under any fair examination to be outstanding people who served the State well on these boards. I do not accept the position outlined.

Deputy Joe Higgins can make the point that all of this is a bit of fun. I do not see it as a bit of fun but as a serious issue. As regards paying them back and how, he could be right in saying that I should have paid them back. Perhaps I should have just paid them back and not worried how it would be interpreted, although I had taken the initiative of giving documentation to the tribunals. I should have been able to say that I had paid them back over several years. I did not do it that way because I thought that would be seen as just doing it at that particular time. I followed the advice I got to the effect that these matters could not come out, and that I should keep the interest and the paperwork up to date.

Deputy Rabbitte asked me earlier whether there was documentation on the circumstances of these loans from the individuals concerned. There is comprehensive documentation and it is with the tribunal as well. On the issue of the Deutsche Bank and the forgery, the tribunals, I believe, have finished with that matter. I mention it because again, it was a sinister act to try to set me up by suggesting I had extensive accounts. I am not making a point about it, however it shows the things one has to try and deal with. That is why I dealt with the tribunals so comprehensively.

I do not think it is a bit of fun, but sometimes one has to resort to ridicule to show the untenable position the Taoiseach is holding onto with his explanations. The Taoiseach is not the only person who has to offer an explanation to the House. In the face of patronage, cronyism and double standards we have the Trappist-like silence from the Tánaiste and leader of the Progressive Democrats. In a previous life in Opposition, one can only imagine the fulminations that would rain down from on high on the Taoiseach's head from Deputy McDowell as regards these issues. To say he would become beetroot red is really only a pallid description of the shade of crimson verging on purple which would describe the glow irradiating from the indignant persona of Deputy McDowell.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Far from standing up for standards, he is sitting neatly beside the Taoiseach today. Admittedly, his demeanour is rather tombstone like, without the moonlight even. However, since his appointment two weeks ago, Deputy McDowell is trying to work hard to have us believe he has no previous history in Government, that he has not been in Government for ten years, and that he has no responsibility for the billions of euro in stamp duty and the rest. He wants us to believe he is a political newborn, dropped by a stork, perhaps, into a basket outside Government Buildings two weeks ago, with Deputy O'Donnell playing along as the besotted nurse fetchingly referring to him as Michael, if one does not mind. That is somewhat different from the name she was spitting out two months ago from behind clenched teeth, when Michael was trying to take the PD rattler from Mary. What has the Tánaiste said to the Taoiseach about this and will he make a statement?

The image which Fianna Fáil has carefully cultivated of the Taoiseach, who is on €250,000 per annum, is that of an ordinary, struggling man like the rest of the ordinary people out there. This image has taken a fierce battering. Ordinary people do not have wealthy friends to do a whip around and the myth that Fianna Fáil is somehow the ordinary working person's party will hopefully end with this episode, where rich people come to the assistance of senior politicians.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

As I said a number of times, these people are friends. If the Deputy wants to categorise people who are friends, that is his entitlement, but it is not an offence to get loans from friends at times. I did that one time in my 55 years on this earth. If in hindsight that was not the wisest thing to do, so be it, but I think there are few of us in this House who have not benefited from friendship at times, particularly in times of difficulty. I have broken no laws and have violated no ethical codes. I have co-operated fully with tribunals that are there to make findings of fact. Other circumstances are used to put out half-truths, exaggerations and claims. I made it very clear what I did and did not do, and I did so many years ago under the confidentiality of tribunals to show that I had nothing to do with any of the issues that I was accused of doing. People are well aware of what has been stated about me over a number of years. I would not wish that people in this House would have to go through the same process I have had to go through in the past eight or nine years to prove that I had no hand, act or part in any of the serious allegations that have been pressed against me, but time will see that right.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The tribunals will see that right.

Top
Share